Seaweed Farming in The Philippines

© 1991 Nerisa D. Salayao, Rogelio N. Tagarino & Charles G.
Kick, III
SEAWEED FARMING IN THE PHILIPPINES:

ITS PROSPECTS IN NORTHEAST SORSOGON
Nerissa D. Salayao
Rogelio N. Tagarino, Ph.D.
Charles G. Kick, III
Preliminary Draft
Abstract
© 1991 Nerisa D. Salayao, Rogelio N. Tagarino & Charles G. Kick, III
Study Background
This paper represents work undertaken by the lead author a s
part of a study of the capabilities of rural coastal communities
capabilities for resource management which focuses on seaweeds.
That study was funded by a one-year fellowship to Dr. Tagarino and Mr.
Kick from the Research and Training Program for Agricultural Policy
(RTPAP). RTPAP, a component of the Philippines' Department of
Agriculture's Accelerated Agricultural Productivity Program (AAPP), is
a joint effort of UPLB's Center for Policy and Development Studies
(CPDS) and College of Economics and Management (CEM).
About the Authors

Nerissa D. Salayao holds a Masters degree in ____ from _____ University
in Malaysia and a Bachelor's degree in ___ from the University of the
Philippines at Los Baños (UPLB). She has worked as a research assistant at
UPLB's College of Economics Management, contributing to a number of studies
(such as: _____ ). Recently, she was a research associate on Dr. Tagarino's and
Mr. Kick's RTPAP study. She is currently a _______ , working on ______ at the
ASEAN ______ in _____ , Malaysia.
Rogelio N. Tagarino, Ph.D., is a Resource Economist; a Member of the

Advanced Technology Alert System of the UN Centre for Science and
Technology for Development; a Training Specialist at the Center for Policy and
Development Studies; and an Affiliate Assistant Professor at the Institute for
Environmental Studies and Management and the Department of Community
and Environmental Resource Planning at the University of the Philippines at
Los Baños, Laguna, Philippines. Dr. Tagarino, a former Ford Foundation
Fellow, has worked on numerous studies in road improvement projects,
irrigation system impact, university development plans, baseline studies on
small-scale fishermen, farming systems sensitivity analyses, etc.. This work
has been undertaken for local NGOs, local and national governments, and
international and multinational agencies (e.g. USAID, IBRD/ADB).
Charles G. Kick, III, is Chief Technical Adviser of the Cooperative

Entrepreneurship for Rural Development Project (PHI/89/M01/DAN), a
technical assistance project of the International Labour Organisation which is
funded by DANIDA. He is a Ph.D. candidate in Community Development at
UPLB, with cognate studies in management and environmental sciences. He
has researched policies and initiatives for agro-waste building materials for
the US national input to the UN Conference on Science and Technology for
Development, and researched remote sensing for resource management. Most
of his work has been in Fiji, the Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, Papua New Guinea
and the Philippines.
Study Background ........................................................................... ii

About the Authors .......................................................................... iii
I. Introduction ........................................................................... 1
A. Background Information................................................. 1
B. Importance and Utilization of Seaweeds ......................... 2
II. State of Culture/Farming Technology ..................................... 2
A. Existing Indigenous Practices......................................... 2
B. Recommended Farming Methods..................................... 4
C. Species Cultured: .......................................................... 6
III. Financial Analysis of Seaweed Farming: ................................... 6
A. Detailed Activities and Expenses.................................... 6
B. Investment Items and Cost............................................ 9
C. Financial Analysis of Selected Culture Systems and
Species .................................................................................. 9
D. Financing of Seaweed Farms: ......................................... 14
IV. Problems, Potentials and Support Services for Seaweed
Culture............................................................................................ 19
A. Problems and Potentials ................................................ 19
B. Considerations for Community Organizations ................. 19
V. Assessment of Existing Government Policies on
Exploitation and Use of Seaweed Resources ..................................... 19
VI. Research Gaps and Policy Considerations ................................ 19
VII. References ............................................................................ 21
I. Introduction
A. Background Information
Seaweeds have been a noteworthy foreign exchange earning
product in the fishery sector coming after tuna and prawns In 1989,
___ mt of seaweed exports valued at P______ accounted for ___% of
the total fishery export value. Although there are ___ species
identified in Philippine waters, only two species, Eucheuma and Caulerpa
lentillifera, are farmed commercially for local and export markets.
Seaweed production is primarily done in Tawi-tawi, Cebu and a few
other provinces in the south.
Commercial farming of Eucheuma in the Philippines started in the
early 1970s and has undergone changes in two major areas. First,
production has shifted from simple bottom culture to more
sophisticated and well-managed support systems such as the floating
raft method, the fixed off-bottom method, and the monoline method.
Second, changes in organization and management included a shift from
highly organized "hacienda-type", or company, farms to individual
family farms (RAPA, 1986). Hence, recent production generally comes
from family farms living in small islands.
Culturing seaweeds in inter-tidal and sub-tidal zones is attractive
to coastal households. These households engage in this form of
coastal aquaculture because of the relatively higher cash income that
can be derived from this activity compared with small-scale fishing.
For instance, fishing incomes in Hingonatan, Bohol, averaged P21.60
($2.70)per day while seaweed farming incomes ranged from P43 00 -
P140.00 ($5.40 - $17.50) per day (Smith, 1980). Hollenbeck (1983)
estimated that there were about 20,000 people directly and indirectly
involved in the P300 million seaweed industry. Recent data (source,
date), however, indicated that there are some 350,800 farmers and
their families engaged in seaweed farming and primary processing.
Seaweed farming provides alternative and/or additional income to
fishermen, hence, coastal aquaculture generates income for coastal
populations without adding to the alleged over-exploitation of fishery
resources in the country.
From the economic aspects, commercial seaweed production in
the country has proved to have a comparative advantage over
developed, temperate countries and even other tropical countries.
This advantage is due to low local production costs and the availability
of planting materials either from the wild or from improved strains.
There is an abundance of labour in the country that suits the labour-
intensive operations of seaweed farming. Furthermore, sophisticated

energy consuming technologies for drying harvested seaweeds are not
required in the country. Current (date) market situation reveals that
Philippine carrageenan costs P_____ ($7-8) per kg; this is about 50%
cheaper than the American processed carrageenan (which is produced
at $15 per kg) (Manila Bulletin, December 6, 1990).
With adequate information and technology dissemination,
seaweed farming can ultimately be a successful coastal aquaculture
activity. This additional activity would help ease the economic
hardships experienced by rural coastal households without destroying
valuable marine and coastal habitats. However, there are signs that
some overall direction and encouragement are needed.
Research into all aspects of seaweed culture, from production
through post-harvest processing, marketing, financing and even
information and technology dissemination should be centrally recorded
in order to provide a venue for identifying gaps and provide basis f o r
policy formulation.
B. Importance and Utilization of Seaweeds
Aside from being the very most important component in the
marine ecosystem's food chain, seaweeds are directly consumed a s
human food and as components of animal feeds and organic fertilizers.
Natural products derived from seaweeds, such as carrageenans,
agars, alginates and fucellaran, are important components of food,
chemical, pharmaceutical and other industrial products.
Commercial production of seaweeds was a response to the
increasing importance and variety of uses of seaweeds in food and
industrial products. Before seaweeds were cultured, production came
from the wild.
As noted, commercial seaweed cultivation in the Philippines,
(particularly Eucheuma), started in the early 1970's. Commercial
production is now concentrated in two species of Eucheuma and
Caulerpa letillifera (RAPA, 1986). It is noteworthy, however, that
about 95% of East Asia's (except the Philippines) seaweed production
is commonly used as human food. The Philippines exports semi-
processed or dried Eucheuma to world markets (Europe, US, Japan) and
a significant amount of Laminaria to China.
II. State of Culture/Farming Technology

A. Existing Indigenous Practices
Seaweed production in northeast Sorsogon comes mainly from

the wild. The gathering of species with commercial value, (Galidiela
acerosa), supplements coastal families' incomes in the area. Other
species such as Eucheuma, Gracilaria and Sargassum are also found
and collected in the reef area, but in much smaller quantities that G.
acerosa, hence, income from those species are not as substantial than
G. acerosa.
Since seaweed gathering is done in open-access coastal areas,
gatherers are concerned with maximizing output at the present time,
without considering the implications of their rate of harvest on future
harvests. Indiscriminate uprooting of seaweeds with commercial value,
and, to some extent, scrubbing the stone surface with sharp-edged
objects (e.g. knife and leveled spoons) were reported during the RTPAP
survey of seaweed gatherers and buyers in northeast Sorsogon.
These methods of gathering are widespread in the area, and could be
attributed to the people's lack of knowledge (and, hence, concern) f o r
conservation of the resource. Individual gatherers are more concerned
with maximizing harvest in order to obtain substantial amount of cash
from selling the dried seaweeds.
Drying of seaweeds, particularly G. acerosa, is also best
described by crude traditional household technologies. G. acerosa
comprises the bulk of the harvests in the areas of Barcelona and
Bulusan. The plants are washed either with sea water or water from
one of the numerous springs in Bulusan. Stones, coral and other debris
are removed from the fresh weeds [How?]. The cleaned seaweeds are
then placed either in metal casseroles or huge cans, and are boiled in
[fresh] water for a few minutes. Then the seaweeds are strained
using a fine-meshed metal screen and evenly spread on pandan mats
(or plastic sheets). In cases where there is an abundance of seaweeds
collected, they are spread on cleaned concrete roads or on other,
multi-purpose pavements in the barangay.
The seaweeds usually remain greenish even after a few hours of
sun drying. Hence, they are either sprinkled (or completely washed)
with water (salt of fresh) for them to attain a bone-white colour.
White and debris free dried seaweeds command a higher price from,
and are desired by, buyers. Sundrying usually takes 2 to 3 days in
order to obtain a moisture content < 35%, another specification
desired by buyers. Dried seaweeds are collected in huge cans or
similar containers. Weights are usually placed on top of the dried
weeds in order to compress them into a bale. A bale is usually ___ to
___ (cu. meters) (kg.) [or other size descriptor].
Small biscuit containers (c. 6) are commonly used. When filled

with dried seaweeds, the bale is tied with abaca or plastic rope,
wrapped in plastic sheets, and sold to local buyers either in their
barangay or in the market at the poblacion. Since most G. acerosa
gatherers are low income earners in need of cash for their daily
subsistence, small quantities (2 to 3 bales of weeds) are immediately
disposed. A similar household processing technology is applied to
Eucheuma and Gracilaria by the smaller number of gatherers collecting
these species.
Sargassum, on the other hand, is sun dried for 2 to 3 days after
removing the entangled debris. Due to the limited market f o r
Sargassum at present, there are few gatherers of or buyers for this
species in northeast Sorsogon. Dried and chopped Sargassum is used
as an organic fertilizer by some farmers while fresh Sargassum are
used as a cushion for the crates or baskets filled with fresh Caulerpa
which are transported to markets in population centers. Nevertheless,
Sargassum is also a source of alginates.
B. Recommended Farming Methods
A number of methods of farming seaweeds have been tested in
order to increase the production of commercially important seaweed
species. These tests of methods could also be done for the culturing
of ecologically and biologically important seaweed species which are
approaching depletion. Most of the tested procedures produced
successful results. These culture systems are broadly categorized
into: (a) the submerged; and (b) the floating system (Table 1). There
are numerous culture systems developed, and tested and suggested,
due perhaps to the wide variability of coastal environments. In
comparison with land-based farming, seaweed cultivation practices
have to be modified more often in order to suit the "difficult-to-
manipulate" coastal reef environment. Too, sea-farming is subject to
more frequent weather and tide changes. Hence, risk-bearing is
generally much higher with sea-farming than land-farming.
Barraca (1988) reported that the submerged culture system is
recommended for reef areas with less changeable water levels. The
water may either be high or low. If water is normally high (deep), then
the seaweeds in the submerged support system should be set at a
level where the plant can get a substantial amount of sunlight without
being exposed above the water level. On the other hand, if the water is
normally low (shallow), the submerged support system is fixed at a
level where the plants will not be exposed to the air during low tides,
while at the same time the plants could get some sunlight. The
submerged system also avoids having the plant touch the sea bottom,
thereby minimizing dirt, the weeds. The choice of a specific type of
submerged support system, however, depends on the sea bottom, its
type, substrate, the availability of material inputs in the area, and the
cost of the support system.
Conversely, floating support systems are recommended in areas
with fluctuating water levels, so that the plant could still get
substantial sunlight during high tides, while not being exposed above
the water during low tides. This system is also suited for areas with
stronger water movement because its flexibility means less pressure
on the plants and, thereby, fewer broken plants. Similarly, the grazing
of fishes, sea urchins and other aquatic animals could be minimized
through frequent movement of the support system holding the plants.
The choice of a specific type of floating support system would also
depend on the type of sea bottom, substrate, the availability and cost
of materials, etc.
6
TABLE 1. DESCRIPTORS OF VARIOUS SEAWEED CULTURING SYSTEMS
TECHNOLOGY SITE REQUIREMENT FARMING PRACTICES

A. Submerged Systems
1. Rock or Stone Ideal for rocky or hard Propagules are tied to stones big enough not
Method bottom sites and strong to be carried away by current.
natural current
ADVANTAGES: Low material input cost
DISADVANTAGES: Labor intensive.
2. Wood/Bamboo Good for soft, not sandy Propagules are tied to stakes driven into sea
Stakes bottom & available wood o r bottom.
Method bamboo.
ADVANTAGE: Uses inexpensive materials.
DISADVANTAGE: Most labor intensive.
3. Net Method Can be used only in areas with Propagules are tied to each intersection of the
moderate current. 20cm mesh net. Nets 2.5cm x 2.5cm made of
nylon/ropes anchored to sea bottom by tying
corners to stakes.
DISADVANTAGES: High cost material inputs;
vulnerable to strong waves, especially when
net is loaded with mature seaweeds.
4. Cage Method Recommended only in areas Propagules are placed in cages (1m wide x
with strong natural current 0.5m deep x 3m long) covered with 3cm mesh
nylon nets on all sides. Each cage is divided
into 6 compartments of 2.5 to 5kg propagules
each (not tied).
5. Monoline Suitable for areas with Propagules are tied to monofilament nylon line
method & / o r shallow water (0.5m); soft o r or braided rope/nylon (2.5 to 10m long) at
Off-bottom sand bottom; and moderate to distances ranging from 5 to 25cm. The
Monoline strong current as lines could stakes are parallel to each other at 15 to
System be oriented perpendicular to 50cm spacing. Harvesting is done either by
shore to reduce damage (e.g. untying the lines with the plants intact or by
uprooting stakes, propagule removing the entire plant individually. The
breakage) from strong former is recommended because lines can be
currents and floating debris. hung and drying is easier and cleaner.
6. Raft/Planting Suitable for areas with low Propagules tied to nylon lines which are tied
Frame Method water levels and moderate to 2.5m x 2.5m frames. Frames are
current. anchored.
ADVANTAGE: The frames are reuseable.
DISADVANTAGES: High initial investment
although cheaper in the long run.
B. Floating (Constant Level Systems)
Systems
1. Modified Suggested for areas with Propagules are tied to nylon lines (1.6cm
Floating Raft fluctuating water levels (1- spacing attached to parallel poles. Poles tied
System 2m deep) to maintain constant to stakes tied to stakes anchored to reef
sunlight without drying during bottom.
low tides.
ADVANTAGES: Higher yield due to better gas
exchange and photosynthetic rates; & less
plant sedimentation, sea urchin grazing
damage, breakage and/or losses.
7
2. Long Line Recommended for areas with Propagules tied to 20m nylon lines whose
Floating usually high water level. The ends are attached to 5m poles supported by
System same environmental require- 1m anchor stakes. Five floats on line at 4m
ments as modified floating intervals. Lines 2m apart.
raft.
ADVANTAGES: Less labor and fewer poles
breakage especially when the long lines sag
due to heavy load of mature plants.
Along with the wide variability of reef environments and the

multiple economic factors such as cost and availability of material
inputs, social factors must receive equal consideration in the adoption
of these generated technologies. Farmers (and potential farmers)
have to be informed of the ecological and biological considerations of
growing seaweeds as well as the financial benefits that might be
derived from this activity. Good information dissemination systems
could equip potential seaweed growers with the appropriate criteria f o r
the selection of the most viable culture system in his area.
C. Species Cultured:
The FAO-UNDP Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific (1986)
reported that there are three major (commercial?) species under
cultivation in the Philippines. They are as follows:
(1) Caulerpa lentillifera, J. Agardh, which is cultivated in ponds
(?) using vegetative propagation or cuttings. These seaweeds
are used fresh, as food (raw) or vegetable (cooked). Culture
ponds can be found in Cebu Province (municipalities?).
(2) Eucheuma alvarezii., Doty, which is also propagated from
vegetative cuttings using artificial support systems on open
reefs. The seaweeds are dried and processed for carrageenan
production. Extensive farm areas are found in the southern
Philippines.
(3) E. denticulatum, (Burman) Collins et Harvey, which is
cultivated much the same as E. alvarezii, but which grows slower.
This is also a source of carrageenan, although more carrageenan
are produced from this variety than from the same amount of E.
alvarezii. (Where?)
III. Financial Analysis of Seaweed Farming:

A. Detailed Activities and Expenses;
The previous section discussed technological and agronomic
aspects of seaweed farming. These aspects do not, however,
guarantee a successful seaweed farming enterprise. The potential of
these technologies rely on their technical and economic viability on
8
actual farms. Undeniably, the technologies can give desirable yields in

terms of quantity and quality in farm trials.
Among those culture systems, monoline methods are being
adopted by most seaweed farmers in Tawi-tawi (Posadas, 1988)
reported that monoline systems, low production costs and simple yet
systematic practices as the main attractions for farms who have
adopted this system. Table 2 indicates that monoline systems require
comparatively lower initial investment and have lower production costs
over raft and net methods.
Table 2. Investment Items and Costs for the First Crop of Selected Seaweed Species by culture method, 1 ha farm.
Item Specification Unit Unit Monoline Method Raft Method Net Method
Price Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost
Material Costs/Cash PHP PHP PHP PHP
Farmhouse & drying platform bamboo & nipa no 9000 1 9,000 1 9,000 1 9,000
Motorized banca 6-7 hp no 6000 1 6,000 1 6,000 1 6,000
Banca dugout no 500 1 500 1 500 1 500
Crowbars medium size pc 160 2 320 5 800 5 800
Sledgehammers medium size pc 140 2 280 5 700 5 700
Rattan baskets medium size pc 40 10 400 20 800 15 600
Round wood/bamboo 5-7cm dia. x 1.5m pc 2 1500 3,000 4000 8,000 0 0
Short stakes anchor, 1m long pc 1 100 100 400 400 3200 3,200
Nylon rope No. 6 (3mm) roll 80 50 4,000 260 20,800 20 1,600
Plastic straw (Softie brand) roll 40 30 1,200 80 3,200 72 2,880
Round wood for fence 5-7cm dia. x 5m pc 3.5 150 525 150 525 150 525
Fish net 20 lb test, 2" mesh meter 9 100 900 100 900 100 900
Fish net 100 lb test, 12" mesh meter 30 0 0 0 0 5000 150,000
Floats styrofoam, 2x3x4" pc 0.3 5880 1,764 3200 960 3200 960
Materials for boundaries bouys, chains, etc. lot 3000 1 3,000 1 3,000 1 3,000
Seeds (purchased) a) 60-120 grams FW/pc kg FW 2 3175 6,350 6000 12,000 6000 12,000
Seeds (purchased) b) 60-120 grams FW/pc kg FW 1.5 3175 4,763 6000 9,000 6000 9,000
Seeds (purchased) c) 60-120 grams FW/pc kg FW 0.5 3175 1,588 6000 3,000 6000 3,000
Fuel & oil for boat a) 3 l/day l/days 30 71 2,130 121 3,630 71 2,130
Fuel & oil for boat b) 3 l/day l/days 30 61 1,830 111 3,330 61 1,830
Fuel & oil for boat c) 3 l/day l/days 30 56 1,680 106 3,180 56.33 1,690
Material Costs/Non-Cash
Seeds for succeeding crops a) 60-120 grams FW/pc kg DW 15 397 5,955 2000 30,000 1296 19,440
Seeds for succeeding crops b) 60-120 grams FW/pc kg DW 10 397 3,970 2000 20,000 1296 12,960
Seeds for succeeding crops c) 60-120 grams FW/pc kg DW 4.5 397 1,787 2000 9,000 1296 5,832
Sub-Total/Materials a) 45,424 101,215 214,235
Sub-Total/Materials b) 41,552 87,915 204,455
Sub-Total/Materials c) 36,043 70,765 191,187
Labor costs/cash
Wages a) 4 fulltime workers manday 90 368 33,120 1040 93,600 368 33,120
Wages b) 4 fulltime workers manday 90 328 29,520 960 86,400 328 29,520
Wages c) 4 fulltime workers manday 90 308 27,720 840 75,600 308 27,720
Labor Costs/Non-Cash
Entrepreneurship a) 1 owner-operator manday 240 281 67,440 331 79,440 281 67,440
Entrepreneurship b) 1 owner-operator manday 240 271 65,040 321 77,040 271 65,040
Entrepreneurship c) 1 owner-operator manday 240 266 63,840 306 73,440 266 63,840
Sub-Total/Labour a) 100,560 173,040 100,560
Sub-Total/Labour b) 94,560 163,440 94,560
Sub-Total/Labour c) 91,560 149,040 91,560
Pages 7 8
Other Costs/Cash
Concessionaire's annual fee appl'n & licence fee 70 1 70 1 70 1 70
Repair & replacement 40% of material cost 4428 1,771 3,176 10,324
Surveyors' professional fee 2 surveyors manday 500 24 12,000 24 12,000 24 12,000
Insurance 5 to 9 persons units 500 5 2,500 9 4,500 9 4,500
Miscellaneous expenses fares, fees, etc. lot 12500 1 12,500 1 12,500 1 12,500
Sub-total/Other Costs 28,841 32,246 39,394
Total Cash Costs (a) 101,430 197,061 267,309
Total Cash Costs (b) 95,943 186,561 260,409
Total Cash Costs (c) 90,818 169,611 252,469
Total Non-Cash Costs (a) 73,395 109,440 86,880
Total Non-Cash Costs (b) 69,010 97,040 78,000
Total Non-Cash Costs (c) 65,627 82,440 69,672
TOTAL COSTS (a) 174,825 306,501 354,189
TOTAL COSTS (b) 164,953 283,601 338,409
TOTAL COSTS (c) 156,444 252,051 322,141
a = refers to Eucheuma spinosum which grows slower than E. cottonii but cost higher.
b = refers to E. cottonii which is more popularly cultured and cheaper than spinosum.
c = refers to Sargassum sp. which is made into organic fertilizer.
Pages 7 8
11
Although the stone and stake methods of cultivation listed in

Table 1 obviously costs less, these methods lack systematic
operations and can be done only in limited areas with rocky bottoms
and moderate currents. Hence, the monoline, raft and net methods of
cultivation are considered for financial evaluation. The specific
activities involved in these culture system are presented in Table 3.
B. Investment Items and Cost
All methods using support systems require the same basic types
of materials and other investment items. They differ in the quantities
of these materials used due to the varying planting densities across
different culture systems. Regarding labour requirements, the r a f t
method is most labour intensive, generally because it has the highest
density of 180,000 plants (or 800 planting frames) per hectare.
This financial analysis considers all the cash and non-cash costs
that can be incurred from the pre-investment until the first crop. As
seaweed farming is a labour intensive activity, careful planning has to
be done prior to the first planting. Table 3 enumerates these
activities and details their estimated duration of and the costs
associated with each. Some literature on the financial analysis of
seaweed farms consider cash costs only and disregards management
and other"overhead" costs incurred per cropping season (Barraca,
undated; and Basa, 1987). The more comprehensive study by Smith
(1987) considered management, tax, maintenance, depreciation and
lease in addition to cash expenses on materials and hired labour.
However, the imputed costs of pre-investment activities were not
considered. Disregarding non-cash expenses in financial evaluations will
give results biased towards a more highly viable and profitable
enterprise than really might eventuate.
C. Financial Analysis of Selected Culture Systems and
Species
Results of the financial analysis considering all cost from the
pre-investment activities until the harvesting activities are shown in
Table 4. Considering the first crop only, all the three methods incurred
losses because of pre-investment, investment and imputed labour
costs. However, the raft method showed positive returns (in the
amount of P12,146) over total cost in the first year of operation with
Eucheuma spinosum. Rafts planted with Eucheuma cottonii and
Sargassum were viable but did not give positive returns over total cost
due to the relatively low gross value of production, P300,000 from
Eucheuma cottonii and P135,000 from Sargassum. Eucheuma
spinosum is priced higher (estimated at P15/kg) than E. cottonii
12
(P10/kg) due to the higher carrageenan yield from the former.

Sargassum is an inferior species and is mainly used for fertilizer, and,
although it is a source of algenin, it is not yet commercially tapped.
Table 3. Schedule of Activities for Eucheuma culture (1 ha farm) Using Raft or 1" in the Support Systems in Sorsogon.
Pesos INCOME NET DURATION

ACTIVITY/EXPENSE/INCOME Qty. Unit per COST PER FROM RETURN/ Work- Actual Total
Unit ACTIVITY ACTIVITY ACTIVITY days days Actual
INVESTMENT ACTIVITIES (IA)
1. Inquiries regarding concession,
licence to culture & loans. Prep-
are documents, i.e. application
forms, area-specific feasibility
studies, market studies, etc.
(a) fares, others 1 lot 2000 2,000
(b) entrepreneurship 77 m/day 240 18,480
20,480 0 (20,480) 77 90 90
2. Survey reef, establish boundaries
(a) materials (buoys, chains, etc.) lot 3000 3,000
(b) fuel/oil for boat 36 liters 10 360
(c) wages 48 m/day 90 4,320
(d) entrepreneurship 12 m/day 240 2,880
(e) surveyors' professional fee 24 m/day 500 12,000
22,560 0 (22,560) 12 14 104
3. File loan applications, pay fees
and permits
(a) application to culture fee 20 20
(b) fares, others lot 5000 5,000
(c) entrepreneurship 12 m/day 240 2,880
7,900 0 (7,900) 12 14 118
4. Scout for laborers and train them
on seaweed culture & farm op'ns
(a) fares, others lot 500 500
2,900 0 (2,900) 10 12 130
5. Canvass source and prices of
material inputs
(a) fares, others lot 1000 1,000
3,400 0 (3,400) 10 12 142
6. Follow-up licence/permit/loans
and prepare other requirements
as needs arise. Pay fees if OK.
(a) concessionaire's fee fee 50 50
(b) fares, others lot 2000 2,000
(d) interest on loan 24763 24,763
33,053 0 (33,053) 26 30 172
7. Slack (contingency for delays)
(a) fares, others lot 1000 1,000
13,240 0 (13,240) 51 60 232
8. Purchase of:
(a) materials for farmhouse
and drying platforms lot 9000 9,000
(b) motor boat (16hp) no 6000 6,000
Pages 10 - 12

(c) tools (saw, hammer, bolo,
crowbar) lot 2000 2,000
18,440 0 (18,440) 6 7 239
9. Construction of farmhouse and
drying platforms (4 workers)
(a) wages 48 m/day 90 4,320
7,200 0 (7,200) 12 14 253
10. Employ 8 laborers to clear debris
from reef, etc.
(a) wages 72 m/day 90 6,480
(b) fuel/oil for boat 27 liters 10 270
8,910 0 (8,910) 9 11 264
11. Purchase material inputs
(a) planting frames 800 no. 50.00 40,000
(b) long stakes (3m) 240 no. 1.50 360
(c) short stakes (1m) 160 no. 1.00 160
(d) floats 3200 no. 0.30 960
(e) baskets, netbags,bamboo rafts lot 700.00 700
12. Apply and secure insurance 0
(a) annual premium 9 pers 500.00 4,500
(b) entrepreneurship 6 m/day 240.00 1,440
48,120 0 (48,120) 6 7 271
13. Constructiing 300 frames for
planting 6,000 kg initial seedlings
500 more frames to be made
daily after planting & harvesting
(a) wages 72 m/day 90 6,480
8,640 0 (8,640) 9 11 282
INVESTMENT COST 194,843 240
TOTAL INCOME DURING THE PERIOD 0 282
NET RETURN DURING THE PERIOD (194,843) 282
Pages 10 - 12

FIRST CROPPING ACTIVITIES (1CA)
14. Planting first crop
(a) seaweed cuttings/seeds 6000 kg FW 2 12,000
(b) fuel/oil for boat 150 liters 10 1,500
(c) wages 400 m/day 90 36,000
61,500 0 (61,500) 50 50 332
15. Harvesting first crop and
replanting for the second crop
Outflow:
(a) fuel 120 liters 10 1,200
(b) seeds for next crop* 2000 kg DW 15 30,000
(c) wages 320 m/day 90 28,800
(e) repairs & replacemnt lot 3553 3,553
(f) miscellaneous expenses lot 1000 1,000
Inflow:
(g) sale of dried seaweeds 8000 kg DW 15 120,000
(h) value of seeds used*** 2000 kg DW 15 30,000
74,153 150,000 75,847 40 40 372
TOTAL COST OF FIRST CROPPING ACTIVITIES (1CA) 135,653 90
TOTAL INCOME FROM FIRST CROP 150,000 90
TOTAL NET RETURN FROM FIRST CROP 14,347 372
ACTIVITIES FOR SUCCEEDING CROPS

16. Harvest existing crop and replant for following crop
Outflow:
(a) fuel 120 liters 10 1,200
(b) seeds for next crop* 2000 kg DW 15 30,000
(c) wages 320 m/day 90 28,800
(e) repairs & replacement lot 3553 3,553
(f) miscellaneous expenses lot 1000 1,000
Inflow:
(a) sale of dried seaweeds 8000 kg DW 15 120,000
(b) value of seeds used*** 2000 kg DW 15 30,000
TOTAL COST OF ONE CROP 74,153
TOTAL INCOME FROM ONE CROP 150,000
TOTAL NET RETURN FROM ONE CROP 75,847
DURATION OF ONE CROPPING (CALENDAR DAYS) 40
* NON-CASH EXPENSE
DW ≈1 kg dry weight = 8 kg fresh weight
Pages 10 - 12
Table 4. Financial Analysis of Eucheuma spinosum, E. cottonii and Sargassum
Using Monoline Culture System, 1 ha. Farm.
METHOD: Monoline Method Raft/Frame Method Net Method

ITEM 1st Crop Year 1 2-5 1st Crop Year 1 2-5 1st Crop Year 1 2-5
BASIC DATA
Area planted/crop (sq m) 7299 7299 7299 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000
No. of crops/year 1 3 7 1 3 7 1 3 7
Planting units/ha/crop 980 980 980 800 800 800 800 800 800
Yield/planting unit (Kg FW) 22.195 22.195 22.195 200 200 200 130 130 130
Prod'n Volume (kg DW) H 1985 5954 13892 10000 30000 70000 6500 19500 45500
Disposable harvest .8H 1588 4763 11113 8000 24000 56000 5200 15600 36400
Harvest of seeds .2H 397 1191 2778 2000 6000 14000 1300 3900 9100
SPECIES CULTURED
a) Eucheuma spinosum
Price/kg DW P15.00 P15.00 P15.00 P15.00 P15.00 P15.00 P15.00 P15.00 P15.00
Gross Value of Prod'n-GVP 29,768 89,303 208,374 150,000 450,000 1,050,000 97,500 292,500 682,500
Value of crops sold 23,814 71,443 166,699 120,000 360,000 840,000 78,000 234,000 546,000
Value of harvest for seeds 5,954 17,861 41,675 30,000 90,000 210,000 19,500 58,500 136,500
b) Eucheuma cottonii
Gross Value of Prod'n-GVP 19,845 59,535 138,916 100,000 300,000 700,000 65,000 195,000 455,000
c) Sargassum
Gross Value of Prod'n-GVP 8,930 26,791 62,512 45,000 135,000 315,000 29,250 87,750 204,750
COSTS OF PRODUCTION
Cash Costs a) 101,430 145,972 170,355 197,061 244,414 205,889 267,309 328,956 520,921
(mat'ls, paid labor and b) 95,943 132,684 143,055 186,561 223,285 178,589 260,409 314,256 223,621
misc. expenses)-CC c) 90,817 123,659 129,405 169,611 205,264 164,939 252,469 302,416 209,971
Page 13
Non-cash Costs a) 73,394 109,301 125,675 109,440 193,440 294,000 86,880 149,760 220,080
(seeds and b) 69,009 96,147 94,983 67,040 156,240 207,200 78,000 123,120 157,920
entrepreneurship) c) 65,626 85,998 71,302 82,440 117,240 121,800 69,672 98,136 99,624
Total Costs (TC) a) 174,824 255,273 296,030 306,501 437,854 499,889 354,189 478,716 741,001
b) 164,952 228,831 238,038 253,601 379,525 385,789 338,409 437,376 381,541
c) 156,443 209,657 200,707 252,051 322,504 286,739 322,141 400,552 309,595
RETURN OVER CASH COSTS
(RCC=GVP-CC) a) (71,662) (56,669) 38,019 (47,061) 205,586 844,111 (169,809) (36,456) 161,579
b) (76,098) (73,149) (4,139) (86,561) 76,715 521,411 (195,409) (119,256) 231,379
c) (81,887) (96,868) (66,893) (124,611) (70,264) 150,061 (223,219) (214,666) (5,221)
RETURN OVER TOTAL COSTS
(RTC=GVP-TC) a) (145,056) (165,970) (87,656) (156,501) 12,146 550,111 (256,689) (186,216) (58,501)
b) (145,107) (169,296) (99,122) (153,601) (79,525) 314,211 (273,409) (242,376) 73,459
c) (147,513) (182,866) (138,195) (207,051) (187,504) 28,261 (292,891) (312,802) (104,845)
Page 13
17
First year activities include the pre-investment and investment

activities, and three cropping seasons. Starting with the second year,
positive returns over cash cost and over total costs can be obtained
from all three methods. This is mainly due to lower production costs in
the second and subsequent years, and the stabilization of production
at seven crops per year.
D. Financing of Seaweed Farms:
The raft method of culturing Eucheuma cottonii and proves to
be the most technically and economically viable against the monoline
and net method in the long-run. Initial investments in materials and
labour costs during the first crop, when planting frames are prepared,
may hinder entrance into seaweed farming. However, others may opt
for the less expensive monoline method. The limitation, however, of
the monoline system is that the planting density is much lower than
the raft method. This also implies that the farm area is used below its
optimum capacity.
Cognizant of the advantages of using the raft method for a
longer period of farming operations, a summary of financing and
repayment schedules for a one hectare farm using this method is
presented in Table 5. Hypothetically, the farm will apply for an
agricultural/fishery loan from a bank in an amount equal to 70 percent
of the capital requirement during the investment and first cropping
period. Assuming that the farm will be planted to the fast-growing E.
cottonii which was found suitable to the coastal areas of northeast
Sorsogon (Alvarez, May 1990 informal conversation), then a one
hectare farm will receive P137,573.
Table 5. Summary of income and expenses.
Year Capital Total Income Net Return/ Duration Month
Major Activity Req't.* Cost** ** Return Capital (Days) Number
1 Investment 137,243 194,843 0 (194,843) (137,243) 222-82 1-6;8

activity
First crop 84,053 135,653 150,000 14,347 65,947 372 7-9;11
Second crop 34,553 74,153 150,000 75,847 115,447 40 10-10.5;12.5
Third crop 34,553 74,153 150,000 75,847 115,447 40 10.5-12;14
Total 290,402 478,802 450,000 (28,802) 159,598 452
2 1st»»7th crop 241,872 519,072 1,050,000 530,928 808,128 280

* Includes material cost, wages and miscellaneous expenses.
** Includes cash and non-cash items.
A moderately higher amount may be required for E. spinosum

farmers due to the higher cost of labour associated with longer culture
periods (approximately 50 days). Most often, interest on agricultural
18
loans are deducted from the principal immediately upon release of

loans. The financial analysis showed positive returns over cash cost in
year one. Hence, this would allow the farmer to repay one-third of his
loans and the balance could be repaid in the second year.
Financial analysis, therefore, shows high returns from seaweed
farming. The future of the seaweed industry in the Philippines appears
to be encouraging in view of the growing demand for seaweeds,
primarily as food additives and as ingredients for industrial products.
This is mainly attributed to the relatively low (cash) cost of production
in the country. Specifically (?), material inputs are locally available and
labour is not a problem in the coastal communities. Hence, seaweed
production in the Philippines will be highly competitive in the world
market.
Recently, there has erupted a controversy over the safety and
quality of the Philippines' seaweed' natural carrageenan. This issue
was apparently raised by two American companies (FMC Corporation
and Hercules, Inc.) which requested the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration to restrict the entry of Philippine carrageenan through
the tactic of raising acceptable import quality standards above WHO-
standards. These firms say that Philippine carrageenan is unfit f o r
human consumption. The Seaweed Industry Association of the
Philippines (SIAP), however, is optimistic that the controversy will be
resolved in favor of status quo: that Philippine carrageenan is
appropriate as a food additive because of its high molecular wight. In
comparison, the American firms' more highly processed carrageenan is
reported to have a lower molecular weight, and, hence, the tendency to
stick to body tissues. This is generally undesirable characteristic f o r
carrageenan which is used as food additives because of its possible
carcinogenic correlation.
In view of the optimistic perceptions of the leaders of the
Philippine seaweed industry, local production should continue in order to
be more competitive and obtain larger share of the international
market. Although there are large expanses of open reefs in the
Southern Philippines, seaweed farming can also be introduced in other
suitable areas in order to increase production and to guarantee
adequate supply for export and local markets. Seaweed growing is
highly affected by weather disturbances, a fact of life in the country.
Undeniably, the supply of seaweeds at reasonable prices could be
guaranteed if production is suited in several areas. Supply gluts might
then be avoided when a natural disaster affects one production site,
such as the Southern Philippines.
19
Northeast Sorsogon has approximately 300 hectares of open

reef suitable for seaweed farming, E. alvarezii in particular (Alvarez,
1990 informal conversation). This is less than 86% of the locality's
reef area. Private test plots in Barangay Dancalan in Bulusan and
Barangay Bagacay in Gubat have given encouraging results, and are
now engaged in multiplying the seeds in preparation for an intensive
farming operations. Table 6 shows the comparison of the
requirements of Eucheuma farming and the characteristics of the
Northeast Sorsogon reef.
Table 6. Summary of Financing and Repayment Schedule
Year 1 Year 2
FINANCING: Month 6 Month 12 Month 6 Month 12
Loan receipts * 137,573
Interest ** 24,763 16,509
Repayment of capital 0 45,858 45,858 45,858
Total Debt Service 24,763 45,858 62,367 45,858
Net Finance Available 112,810 (45,858) (62,367) (45,858)
Outstanding balance 137,573 91,715 45,858 0
* 70% of capital requirement during the investment and first crop period.
** 18% interest per annum on agricultural loans.
Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, through its regional

and municipal offices, put-up test plots in four sites in Bulusan, Matnog
and Sta. Magdalena in 1989, but only the plots in Matnog survived to
May 1990. The others were destroyed by typhoons and were not
replaced. Nevertheless, BFAR technical staff believes that seaweed
farming has great potential in the wide reefs of Sorsogon i f
technologies suitable to the rigorous climate and the characteristics of
the reef area.
Unlike residents of Gubat, Barcelona and Bulusan, the residents
of the coastal barangays in Prieto Diaz do not gather seaweeds f o r
(extra) cash income. BFAR's biological survey [reference] disclosed
that Prieto Diaz has the fewest seaweed species collected (Tables 7 &
8). However, the municipality's wide reef area (___ha.) is
characterized by physical features suited for seaweed farming; this
has persuaded BFAR to include the municipality as a potential area f o r
seaweed cultivation in Sorsogon.
20
TABLE 7. COMPARISON OF FARM SITE REQUIREMENTS FOR EUCHEUMA

CULTURE AND THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE NORTHEAST SORSOGON REEF
Farm/site Requirements Characteristics of the Sorsogon reef

area
Species
There are several species of Eucheuma but *Eucheuma alvarezii being grown on private
only two Philippines; namely, Eucheuma trial plots in Dancalan, Bulusan. *BFAR
cottonii (=E. stiatum, = E. alvarezii ) and E. maintains trial plots also in Matnog. *A local
spinosum (= E. denticulatum ). official in Prieto Diaz has trial plots on the
municipality’s reef.
Location: Characteristics of the Sorsogon Reef:
Grows well in tropical regions on coral reefs Extensive area with sandy-corraline
and on the rocky and sandy bottoms of marine substrate & variety of seaweed species;
waters in intertidal or subtidal zones. some nearshore areas with mangroves &
seagrasses, Gubat in particular.
Water quality:
Clear, constant motion for continuous nutrient Strong current especially along the reef
flow; Salinity: 28 ppt, relatively salty,
purely marine; Depth: at least 30cm during
low tide; Temperature: 27° to 30°C;
Current: 5-10m per minute
Land Quality:
Substratum - Sandy/rocky Sandy-coralline and coral rubble substrate
Fauna: Local seaweeds species:

Presence of natural seed stocks and other Caulerpa racemosa, C. okamurai; Padina sp .;
vegetation, eeg, eel grass or sargassum. Galidiela acerosa; Gracilaria firma;
Enteromorpha intestinales; Turbina ornata;
and Ulva reticulata
Climatic Factor:
Reef areas to protect the farm from typhoon,
strong waves, etc.
Other:
Free from industrial and domestic pollution. The area has no large factories or other likely
Far from freshwater sources. sources of industrial effluents. Resident
population is quite small to put pressure on
the environment.
Socio-Economics & Marketing:
The farm should be relatively accessible to The coastal towns of NE Sorsogon (except
output market and input sources. Price should Prieto DIaz) are accessible by paved roads.
be attractive and stable. High demand for the The Legaspi airport is about 80 km away.
product.
Farm management operations:
The best agronomy for seaweed farming
involves the manipulation of the plantings to
attain minimal losses due to adverse effects
of environmental and climatic changes (Doty,
1986). For instance, plants should be
adjusted with changes in water levels such
that the plant would not be muddy.
References:
21
Doty, M. 1986.
Barraca, R.T. Undated.
Seaweed/Seagrass/Mangrove Fishery
Resource Section-BFAR-DA March 1989.
Travel Report..
Table 8. Species of Seaweeds Collected from Coastal Waters of Eastern

Sorsogon (March 1989)
SPECIES PRIETO BARCELON DANCALAN
GUBAT A ,
PROPER BAGACAY DIAZ BULUSAN
CHLOROPHYCEAE
Dictyosphaeria cavernosa x x
Valonia sp. x x
Caulerpa racemosa x
C. serrulata x
Halimeda opuntia x x x x
Ulva sp. x x x
Enteromorpha x x x
intestinalis
Halicoryne wrightii x
Acetabularia sp. x x x
Neomeris annulata x x
Chaetomorpha sp. x
PHAEOPHYCEAE
Sargassum spp. (7) x x x x x
Padina crassa x x
P. japonica x x
Colpomenia sinuosa x x
Turbinaria spp. (2) x x x x x
Hydroclathrus tenuis x
Dictyopteris sp. x
RHODOPHYCEAE
Gelidiella acerosa x x x x
Digenia simplex x x
Desmia sp. x
Gracilaria eucheumoides x x x x
G. salicornia x x x
G. firma x x
G. spp. (5) x x x x
Laurencia spp. (4) x x
Actinotrichia fragilis x x x x
Halymenia sp. x
Grateloipia filicina* x
Jania sp. x x
Mastophora rosea x
Galaxaura spp. (2) x x
Acantophora specifera x
22
Liagora sp. x
*Abundant in Sabang, Bulusan.
Source: Seaweed/Seagrass/Mangrove Fishery Resource Section-BFAR-DA
23
IV. Problems, Potentials and Support Services for Seaweed

Culture
A. Problems and Potentials
1 . Financial
2 . Technical
3 . Marketing
4 . Risks and uncertainties
B. Considerations for Community Organizations
1 . Financing
2 . Marketing
3 . Technology/Information Dissemination
V. Assessment of Existing Government Policies on

Exploitation and Use of Seaweed Resources
VI. Research Gaps and Policy Considerations

In view of the dearth of documented information on seaweed
farming in Northeast Sorsogon, there is a need for baseline
information on the coastal environment and a profile of the
communities of Northeast Sorsogon. The data should include
biogeographical, social, economic, legal and institutional attributes of
these communities in order that comprehensive and specific policies on
seaweed cultivation can be formulated for the area.
Specifically, biogeographical studies would identify sites suitable
for seaweed culture by species. Such a study would examine the
characteristics of the coral reels, the types of marine life existing in
the reef areas, the effect of seaweed farming on the marine
ecosystem and on the productivity of other (fishery) resources.
Social and economic studies, on the other hand, would deal with
the appropriate delivery of economic and social services to support the
communities' participation in development programs. The structure of
existing local and international seaweed market links and their
relationship with the production sector in Northeast Sorsogon needs
detailed evaluation, considering the intricacies of seaweed marketing
channels and the distance between the site and processing centers in
Central Visayas.
The biological survey conducted by BFAR reported an abundance
of wild species in Northeast Sorsogon. Undeniably, potential seaweed
24
farmers have to equal if not surpass the performance of the seaweed

growers in Southern Philippines whose homes are more proximate both
to the reefs and to processing sites. Studies on the propagation and
non-traditional uses of species other than Eucheuma could be
undertaken so that the seaweed farmers are not dependent on
Eucheuma alone. Non-traditional uses of seaweeds (such as fertilizer
components, soil conditioners, animal feeds, food additives and other
industrial uses) should be developed. Processing these products might
be viable in the Sorsogon or Bicol area. This could be a more
economical alternative than establishing firms intended for semi-
processed carrageenan production similar to those in Central and
Southern Philippines. This implies that feasibility for such processing
centers for non-traditional seaweed uses are likewise necessary. The
lack of studies on the marketing and processing of higher-valued
products most often limits the agricultural and fishery sectors
(REFERENCE? GENERAL KNOWLEDGE?)
Legal and institutional studies would assess the structure of the
community and the informal organizations which could be harnessed in
the selection, design and implementation of development programs.
Legal aspects seem to be the most urgent since functional culture
technologies have already been developed. Use of these technologies
on seaweed farms will largely depend on appropriate access to and
prices for rights to use the resource. In this regard, coordination
between various national government agencies and local officials are
necessary and is a delineation of each level's responsibilities and
authorities. Possibly, a reformulation of regulations and policies on
coastal resource use and management would result.
25
VII. References
Agriscope. 1986. Agribusiness Opportunities. World Media Grove, Inc., Diliman, Quezon City
Alunan, M.M. Seaweed produces rap US move. Manila Bulletin, December 6,1990.
Barraca, T.T. 1988. Farming and Exporting of Eucheuma (Seaweeds) in Indonesia. FMC Marine
Colloids Division. USA.
Barraca, T.T. Undated. Guide to Eucheuma Seaweed Farming for Contract Growers and
Entrepreneurs. FMC Corporation-Marine Colloids Division. Rockland, Maine, USA.
Basa, S.S. 1987. Eucheuma Farming: An Income Generating Project. Bureau of Fisheries and
Aquatic Resources. Quezon City.
Carambas, N. DM. 1987. Seaweed Commodity System Study. Special Problem. UP Los Banos,
College, Laguna.
Doty, M.S. 1986. Estimating Farmer Returns from Producing Gracilaria and Eucheuma on Line
Farms. Monografias Biologicas 4:45-62 Simposio Internacional. Usos y Funciones
Ecologicas de las Algas Marinas Bentonicas. Bernabe Sentelices, editor.
Doty, M.S. 1989. An Unusual Experimental Program in Applied Phycology: On the Socio-
Economic Impact of Seaweed Farming. Applied Phycology Forum. Vol. 6. No. 1.
Mongaya, E. Local seaweeds industry threatened. Manila Standard. April 18, 1990.
Padilla, J. and H. Lampe. 1989.
Rabanal, H.R. and G.C. Trono, Jr. 1983. Seaweeds in Asia: A resource waiting for
development. Infofish Marketing Digest. No. 4/83.
Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific. 1986. Seaweed Culture in the Asia Pacific Region.
FAO-UN. Bangkok.
Seaweed products and markets. 1983. Infofish Marketing Digest No. 4/83.
Seaweed/Seagrass/Mangrove Fishery Resource Section-BFAR-DA. May 1989. Travel Report
for the Project Titled: Biological and Oceanographic Studies of Eastern Sorsogon with
Emphasis on Seaweeds and Associated Invertebrate Resources.
Smith, A. 1986. A Guide to Seamoss Cultivation in the West Indies. Carbbean Conservation
Association.
Smith, I.R. and R.P Smith. 1980. A Fishing Community's Response to Seaweed Farming.
ICLARM Newsletter. Vol. 3 No. 3. ICLARM, Makati, Metro Manila, Philippines.
Smith, I.R. 1987. The Economics of Small-Scale Seaweed Production in the South China Sea
Region. FAO Fisheries Circular no. 806. FAO-UN. Rome.
Tagarino & Kick._____. RTPAP Study, Draft Final Report, 15 January 1991.
References for Table 1: Barraca, R.T. Undated. Posadas, B.C. 1988.

Barraca, R.T. 1988. Basa, S.S. 1987. RAPA-FAO-UN. 1986.

Seaweed Farming in The Philippines

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Seaweed Farming in The Philippines

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

© 1991 Nerisa D. Salayao, Rogelio N. Tagarino & Charles G.

SEAWEED FARMING IN THE PHILIPPINES:

About the Authors

Rogelio N. Tagarino, Ph.D., is a Resource Economist; a Member of the

Charles G. Kick, III, is Chief Technical Adviser of the Cooperative

Study Background ........................................................................... ii

intensive operations of seaweed farming. Furthermore, sophisticated

II. State of Culture/Farming Technology

Seaweed production in northeast Sorsogon comes mainly from

Small biscuit containers (c. 6) are commonly used. When filled

TABLE 1. DESCRIPTORS OF VARIOUS SEAWEED CULTURING SYSTEMS

TECHNOLOGY SITE REQUIREMENT FARMING PRACTICES

Along with the wide variability of reef environments and the

III. Financial Analysis of Seaweed Farming:

actual farms. Undeniably, the technologies can give desirable yields in

Although the stone and stake methods of cultivation listed in

(P10/kg) due to the higher carrageenan yield from the former.

Pesos INCOME NET DURATION

Pesos INCOME NET DURATION

Pesos INCOME NET DURATION

ACTIVITIES FOR SUCCEEDING CROPS

METHOD: Monoline Method Raft/Frame Method Net Method

First year activities include the pre-investment and investment

Major Activity Req't.* Cost** ** Return Capital (Days) Number

1 Investment 137,243 194,843 0 (194,843) (137,243) 222-82 1-6;8

First crop 84,053 135,653 150,000 14,347 65,947 372 7-9;11

Second crop 34,553 74,153 150,000 75,847 115,447 40 10-10.5;12.5

Third crop 34,553 74,153 150,000 75,847 115,447 40 10.5-12;14

Total 290,402 478,802 450,000 (28,802) 159,598 452

2 1st»»7th crop 241,872 519,072 1,050,000 530,928 808,128 280

A moderately higher amount may be required for E. spinosum

loans are deducted from the principal immediately upon release of

Northeast Sorsogon has approximately 300 hectares of open

Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, through its regional

TABLE 7. COMPARISON OF FARM SITE REQUIREMENTS FOR EUCHEUMA

Farm/site Requirements Characteristics of the Sorsogon reef

Fauna: Local seaweeds species:

Table 8. Species of Seaweeds Collected from Coastal Waters of Eastern

IV. Problems, Potentials and Support Services for Seaweed

V. Assessment of Existing Government Policies on

VI. Research Gaps and Policy Considerations

farmers have to equal if not surpass the performance of the seaweed

References for Table 1: Barraca, R.T. Undated. Posadas, B.C. 1988.

You might also like

Major Activity Req't.* Cost Return Capital (Days) Number